Old Earth vs Young Earth, a debate between Christians

[JackFinfan]

Oh come on Jack, you know I don’t ignore posts, if anything I don’t ignore the ones I should (:-P), I simply missed that post, I’ll respond below.



Sure he disobeyed them but not in the same manner as Eve. Eve was deceived by Satan, who questioned God’s word while Adam was really deceived he simply chose to disobey God’s word. I know it’s a difficult passage, I have struggled with it before as well, but I have to stick with God’s revealed word on such matters since He’s the one who knows who is more easily deceived spiritually. There’s a whole other aspect to this argument that is being overlooked, Paul also references the created ordinance to back up his position, women were created after men and apparently God did this for a specific purpose much like the 7 day creation week in order to establish our normal week. Additionally, women are not prohibited from holding positions in the church, or from even teaching other men (Acts 18), if this was merely a means of holding women down I think Paul would have prohibited women from holding authority over men or instructing men under any circumstance but he didn’t.



I am not saying men are never deceived spiritually, I am merely saying they are less likely to be.



Do you have anything to back that position up or are you just holding that as an opinion? I think most women have an easier time accepting the fact that they may have different spiritual gifts than men do than your assertion that they apparently are so gullible they let men dupe them into being submissive for the last few millennia.

Men and women are different; I see no issue with believing that, my wife is probably one of the nicest people on the planet and sharp as a whip to boot. However, I certainly know my scripture and theology far better than she does, we’re just different.

I don't think many women in the church would agree with that fact that women are easier to be deceived spiritually than males. My parents are very religious, so I had to attend church from a little kid till my teen years. I can't recall 1 sermon or 1 Bible study, in which I was told that women were easier to deceive.

I never said women were gullible and thus let men dupe them into being submissive. It doesn't take that much intelligence to imagine why women lacked authority throughout history. In primitive times, I would imagine that physical strength had much to do with who was in charge. Women are much weaker physically, thus men possessed authority.

I have as much proof for my theory as you do yours. At least I'm interpreting history in common sense terms; you're interpreting fairy tales about talking snakes and magical fruits.

[Statler Waldorf]

I don't think many women in the church would agree with that fact that women are easier to be deceived spiritually than males. My parents are very religious, so I had to attend church from a little kid till my teen years. I can't recall 1 sermon or 1 Bible study, in which I was told that women were easier to deceive.

Christians are supposed to believe that scripture is the infallible word of God, so they are supposed to believe what Paul says that verse is absolutely true, whether they do or not may be a different story. None of the Christian women I know have any objection to that verse though, well I take that back, I can remember one I was having a discussion with a few years ago who didn’t like that verse, but that’s all I can think of.

I never said women were gullible and thus let men dupe them into being submissive. It doesn't take that much intelligence to imagine why women lacked authority throughout history. In primitive times, I would imagine that physical strength had much to do with who was in charge. Women are much weaker physically, thus men possessed authority.

Have women always been weaker physically? Why is it apparently ok for a man to believe women are weaker physically but not ok to believe they are more easily deceived spiritually? I am not following you on that one.

I have as much proof for my theory as you do yours. At least I'm interpreting history in common sense terms; you're interpreting fairy tales about talking snakes and magical fruits.

That seems like a bit of a low road for you to take Jack, I have a lot of respect for you, and I believe you know good and well that you are interpreting the verse consistently with your view of reality (naturalism) and I am interpreting it in a manner consistent with mine (Christian Theism). It really takes us back to the question, whose view of reality is correct?

[JackFinfan]

Christians are supposed to believe that scripture is the infallible word of God, so they are supposed to believe what Paul says that verse is absolutely true, whether they do or not may be a different story. None of the Christian women I know have any objection to that verse though, well I take that back, I can remember one I was having a discussion with a few years ago who didn’t like that verse, but that’s all I can think of.



Have women always been weaker physically? Why is it apparently ok for a man to believe women are weaker physically but not ok to believe they are more easily deceived spiritually? I am not following you on that one.



That seems like a bit of a low road for you to take Jack, I have a lot of respect for you, and I believe you know good and well that you are interpreting the verse consistently with your view of reality (naturalism) and I am interpreting it in a manner consistent with mine (Christian Theism). It really takes us back to the question, whose view of reality is correct?

Well we seem to be going around in circles, so I see no point in continuing. My intentions from the start weren't really to get into a debate. I just wanted to know why you made your statement regarding women. I think you expressed your view well, and while I may not agree with it, at least you have legitimate religious reasons as to why you hold them. As for my "low blow", I stand by the fact that the Bible is an accumulation of stories, tales, and myths taken from various times about various "Gods" and compiled into one book. I respect you as a person, and I most certainly respect your intelligence, but that doesn’t mean I have to respect your outdated belief system. You may not believe Adam and Eve in the garden is a fairy tale, but it certainly had talking snakes and magical fruits. Any other story outside the Bible involving talking animals is called a fairy tale.

[Statler Waldorf]

Well we seem to be going around in circles, so I see no point in continuing. My intentions from the start weren't really to get into a debate. I just wanted to know why you made your statement regarding women. I think you expressed your view well, and while I may not agree with it, at least you have legitimate religious reasons as to why you hold them. As for my "low blow", I stand by the fact that the Bible is an accumulation of stories, tales, and myths taken from various times about various "Gods" and compiled into one book. I respect you as a person, and I most certainly respect your intelligence, but that doesn’t mean I have to respect your outdated belief system. You may not believe Adam and Eve in the garden is a fairy tale, but it certainly had talking snakes and magical fruits. Any other story outside the Bible involving talking animals is called a fairy tale.

Well I think we understand each other pretty well on the “woman issue”. I do not understand your objections with the stories in the Bible though, are you really suggesting that Satan could not take the form of a serpent and talk to a woman? That an omnipotent God cannot make a donkey talk to a man? Or make an ax head float? It seems to me like you are assuming naturalism is true and then using that assumption to argue against the accounts in the Bible; that seems to be a bit circular to me.

[irish fin fan]

well i think we understand each other pretty well on the “woman issue”. I do not understand your objections with the stories in the bible though, are you really suggesting that satan could not take the form of a serpent and talk to a woman? That an omnipotent god cannot make a donkey talk to a man? Or make an ax head float? It seems to me like you are assuming naturalism is true and then using that assumption to argue against the accounts in the bible; that seems to be a bit circular to me.

smh

[JackFinfan]

Well I think we understand each other pretty well on the “woman issue”. I do not understand your objections with the stories in the Bible though, are you really suggesting that Satan could not take the form of a serpent and talk to a woman? That an omnipotent God cannot make a donkey talk to a man? Or make an ax head float? It seems to me like you are assuming naturalism is true and then using that assumption to argue against the accounts in the Bible; that seems to be a bit circular to me.

I like to keep an open mind, so anything is possible. But, even a lot of Christians believe many of the stories in the Bible are symbolic.

[Statler Waldorf]

smh

Are you saying you think circularity should be allowed or are you saying that an omnipotent God could not do those things? Either way, I am not sure you’re on very solid ground.

I like to keep an open mind, so anything is possible. But, even a lot of Christians believe many of the stories in the Bible are symbolic.

Sure, some Christians view scripture that way, but I think that is a fatally inconsistent way of viewing scripture. They usually do this because they are afraid that secularist will ridicule them for believing the Earth is young, but any secularist who is consistent in their ridicule is going to also ridicule them for believing a virgin gave birth and a dead man came back to life; so if they are going to say those stories are merely symbolic consistently then why isn’t the virgin birth just symbolic? How about the resurrection? How about the deity of Christ? Someone who denies the virgin birth, deity of Christ, and bodily resurrection of Christ is not a Christian but simply someone who is sympathetic to some Christian teachings. Interpreting scripture according to the literal style it is written in is the only consistent way to interpret scripture.

[JackFinfan]

Sure, some Christians view scripture that way, but I think that is a fatally inconsistent way of viewing scripture. They usually do this because they are afraid that secularist will ridicule them for believing the Earth is young, but any secularist who is consistent in their ridicule is going to also ridicule them for believing a virgin gave birth and a dead man came back to life; so if they are going to say those stories are merely symbolic consistently then why isn’t the virgin birth just symbolic? How about the resurrection? How about the deity of Christ? Someone who denies the virgin birth, deity of Christ, and bodily resurrection of Christ is not a Christian but simply someone who is sympathetic to some Christian teachings. Interpreting scripture according to the literal style it is written in is the only consistent way to interpret scripture.

A virgin birth is a common thing among many of the made up "Gods" back in those days. Actually, if you do some research, you'll see that Jesus shares a lot of similar characteristics/stories with older Gods.

[Statler Waldorf]

A virgin birth is a common thing among many of the made up "Gods" back in those days. Actually, if you do some research, you'll see that Jesus shares a lot of similar characteristics/stories with older Gods.

Well not really, that’s a bit of atheistic fool’s gold that is often tossed around by people like Dan Barker. What they are doing is a bit sneaky though, they are using biblical language to describe other stories about other gods in order to make them sound more similar to the stories in the Bible. For example, Barker will say that Dionysus was born of a virgin just like Jesus, but the actual story has nothing to do with a virgin birth because Dionysus was sewn into the thigh of Zeus (which is hardly a "virgin birth"). Barker will also speak of other figures being born on December 25^th, and yet fails to realize or at least mention that Jesus’ birthday being on December 25^th is not something that was ever gathered from scripture; so it’s really nothing more than a bit of “sleight of hand” on Barker’s part. There is a very good theological reason and necessity for the virgin birth.